Clients pay lawyers for their advice, counsel, guidance and
their opinion. So, when is it important for a lawyer to
not offer an opinion?
Lawyers as leaders and managers are tasked with setting a vision
and course for their firm or organization. They are skilled at
asking questions and leading discussions. They are good at probing
for clarification and summarizing thoughts. They are organized and
deadline-driven. But how good are they at facilitating?
Lawyer leaders sometimes find themselves in the role of
facilitator, often with their lawyer peers inside their
organizations. Managing partners are often in this role and most
people might think they are the only ones called upon to
facilitate. However, practice group and committee leaders may also
find themselves in this unfamiliar territory. And it might actually
be a bit uncomfortable for those trained to have an opinion and
argue passionately in defense of it.
So, let's consider what facilitating is not then we can
explore what it is. Facilitating is not:
- Entering in a discussion with a pre-conceived notion of the
outcome
- Having a clear, pre-determined idea of where you want to the
discussion to end up
- Leading the discussion with your opinion, supported by facts
and/or data
- Advocating for a specific outcome
Facilitating is a different skill set that requires drawing
others into the conversation; listening actively for key points
that need follow-up and further probing; guiding the discussion in
a productive, helpful and inclusive manner; being completely
agnostic about any outcome; checking your ego and your tendency to
pre-judge what others might say at the door; and keeping your
opinion to yourself.
For example, let's say that you are leading a committee charged
with exploring alternative technology tools that will provide
greater efficiency and reduce billable time spent on matters, but
the cost of these tools is not insignificant. Therefore, the
committee needs to make a recommendation to firm management after
weighing all of the factors. You believe the firm simply must
invest in these tools or risk losing valuable clients. To you, it's
a no-brainer. "Spend money to make money," as the saying goes. But,
you also know that others on your committee are not of the same
mind. At least one of them still dictates to her/his secretary as
opposed to drafting documents on their computers. How are you going
to get from Point A to Point Z, if Point A is the present and Point
Z is full adoption of technology efficiency tools?
One way would be to gather evidence in support of your desired
outcome, share that evidence in advance with your committee,
prepare a PowerPoint presentation complete with pie-charts and
graphs that provide further support for adoption of technology, and
line up vendor demos for the committee, assuming, of course, that
the committee is in full agreement that the firm must invest in
these tools. But how do you know what the committee members think
or feel?
If you start the process with your facilitator hat on, you will
approach it differently. Your first meeting will be entirely
devoted to asking questions, such as:
- How do people feel about what we have been asked to do?
- How should we go about the process of gathering data and
assessing available tools?
- What internal information do we need in addition to external
information?
- What's the best way for us to gather and compile that
information?
- Assuming that after we've done all of our assessment work and
agree that the firm should invest in one or more efficiency tools,
how willing are each of us to lead by example and fully adopt the
selected tool?
And, the last thing you should do before ending any meeting is
to go around the table and ask each person if they have any more
thoughts, opinions or questions.
Handling the process as a facilitator versus leader will yield
ancillary benefits, such as participants feeling heard, getting
greater buy-in when the outcome is achieved and people being
invested in a successful outcome.
Some people think that facilitation is the same as mediation. It
is not. Mediation is for conflicts that need resolution;
facilitation is working with a group focused on a common
problem/issue/desired outcome and making sure that all members of
the group participate in the process.
Other examples where facilitation would be useful:
- Practice Group Leaders needing to write a business development
plan for their group
- Heads of Committees tackling a specific issue in the firm,
e.g., associate compensation
- Law Firm Leaders working on a strategic plan for the coming
year
This is not to say that all leadership requires facilitation. To
the contrary, law firm leaders are often called upon to direct the
firm with vision, clarity, and strategy. The point is that
facilitation has its place in law firms, along with leadership,
mediation and conflict resolution. Learning to be an effective
facilitator can help you unlock creativity that will yield hugely
positive results.